This article was downloaded by: [State University NY Binghamton] On: 08 March 2015, At: 07:25 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Memory Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pmem20

Mother–child memory conversations and selfconstrual in Eastern Turkey, Western Turkey and the USA a

Basak Sahin-Acar & Michelle D. Leichtman a

b

Department of Psychology, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

b

Department of Psychology, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA Published online: 16 Jul 2014.

Click for updates To cite this article: Basak Sahin-Acar & Michelle D. Leichtman (2015) Mother–child memory conversations and selfconstrual in Eastern Turkey, Western Turkey and the USA, Memory, 23:1, 69-82, DOI: 10.1080/09658211.2014.935437 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2014.935437

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Memory, 2015 Vol. 23, No. 1, 69–82, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2014.935437

Mother–child memory conversations and self-construal in Eastern Turkey, Western Turkey and the USA Basak Sahin-Acar1 and Michelle D. Leichtman2 1

Department of Psychology, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey Department of Psychology, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA

Downloaded by [State University NY Binghamton] at 07:25 08 March 2015

2

(Received 17 January 2014; accepted 10 June 2014)

Eighty-seven mothers and their four-year-old children from Eastern Turkey (N = 32 pairs), Western Turkey (N = 30 pairs) and the USA (N = 25 pairs) participated in a study of mother–child memory talk as a reflection of mothers’ self construal, in view of differences in the function of memory talk across cultures. Mother–child pairs were audio-recorded while talking about shared past and anticipated future events. Mothers completed the Balanced Integration–Differentiation questionnaire measure of selfconstrual and were scored as high or low on individuation and relatedness orientations. Mothers’ memory and future talk showed similar patterns of cultural differences: American mothers provided the most voluminous, descriptive and elaborative talk, while Eastern Turkish mothers showed the highest level of repetitiveness, and Western Turkish mothers’ talk fell in between. Children’s memory talk was similar across cultures. In all cultures, mothers who scored high on both individuation and relatedness (balanced self-construal subtype) engaged in more voluminous and contexted memory talk, and individuation was associated with more elaborative talk about future events. Results are discussed in light of literature on cultural differences in self-construal and memory function.

Keywords: Culture; Memory; Mother–child conversation; Self-construal.

A striking discovery in contemporary memory research has been the difference between memories of adults who have grown up in East Asia versus North America. Based largely on data from China and Korea in contrast with the USA and Canada, researchers have demonstrated that adults raised in contrasting cultural contexts remember and talk about autobiographical memories differently, and that these differences find their roots in childhood socialisation (Fivush, Haden, & Reese, 2006; Wang, 2001, 2004; Wang & Conway, 2004; Wang & Leichtman, 2000). Normatively, North American adults engage in frequent, elaborative introspection about the events of their lives and have detailed and early memories

of childhood, while East Asian adults engage less frequently in such introspection and have relatively later earliest memories (Wang, 2001, 2004; Wang & Leichtman, 2000). These cultural differences reflect the decidedly different functions that memory talk can serve: for example, depending on cultural values and practices, memory talk may be used as a means of bonding with other people, emphasising social roles or providing directives to future behaviour (e.g., Bluck, Alea, Habermas, & Rubin, 2005; Wang & Fivush, 2005). In particular, the frequent elaborative memory talk of North American adults reflects an emphasis on unique personal attributes and history that accords with a tightly

Address correspondence to: Basak Sahin, Department of Psychology, Middle East Technical University, Psikoloji Bolumu, Odtu Cankaya Ankara 06531, Turkey. E-mail: [email protected]

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

Downloaded by [State University NY Binghamton] at 07:25 08 March 2015

70

SAHIN-ACAR AND LEICHTMAN

bounded, independently oriented self-construal. In this cultural context, rich and storied conversations about personally experienced past events may serve as a forum for distinguishing the self from others and for socialising children to do the same (Han, Leichtman, & Wang, 1998; Leichtman, Wang, & Pillemer, 2003; Wang, 2004). Accordingly, researchers have noted that cultural differences in adult recollection correspond to differences in the nature of parent–child conversations. While North American mothers frequently have elaborative conversations with their children about personally experienced past events—encouraging children to provide detailed descriptions, frequently asking open-ended questions and prompting children to elaborate and guide in conversation (Leichtman, Pillemer, Wang, Koreishi, & Han, 2000; Reese & Fivush, 1993; Wang & Leichtman, 2000)—East Asian mothers take a more didactic approach, asking pointed questions and encouraging less discussion of past events (Han et al., 1998; Mullen, 1994; Wang & Leichtman, 2000). Children pick up on these conversational differences early, so that even preschool-aged American children engage in more descriptive, elaborated and self-focused talk about specific past events than East Asian preschoolers (Han et al., 1998; Wang & Leichtman, 2000; Wang, 2004), reflecting culturally distinct customs and functions of memory talk. The current study focused on differences in mother–child conversation in Turkey, in two diverse subcultures in which mother–child conversation has never been studied, and in a contrasting US sample. Sub-cultural differences have rarely been examined but are important to consider as they shed light on how variations in conversational style may arise in association with local customs and values, rather than as a function of the dramatic differences among countries that have been documented previously. Differences in mothers’ conversation styles have been associated with differences on measures of selfconstrual, and we evaluated this in a unique way within this literature: by considering the contribution of individuation and relatedness self-construal orientations separately along with their combined impact on conversational variables. We also extended past research on mother–child conversation about past events to talk about the future, to assess the extent to which culture and self-construal measures showed similar effects in

these two kinds of conversations. Recent work in neuroscience has suggested that similar cognitive processes and patterns of brain activation (e.g., in hippocampus, parahippocampal gyrus and prefrontal cortex) are engaged when adults think about past events and imagine future events (Schacter, Addis, & Buckner, 2007, 2008), but to our knowledge no work to date on cultural differences in mother–child conversation has examined talk about future events. This seems important given that talking about anticipated future events could serve similar functions as talking about the past, reflecting mothers’ cultural values and self-construal as they guide children in thinking about how upcoming events will unfold. The populations of interest were Eastern Turkish, Western Turkish and American mothers and their preschoolers. Like the East Asian cultures that have been the focus of previous memory research, Turkish culture has been characterised as collectivist (Hofstede, 1980), reflecting values associated with an interdependent self-construal, such as relatedness, a focus on interpersonal harmony and close ties with family and other in-group members (Imamoglu, 1998, 2003; Imamoglu & Karakitapoglu-Aygun, 2004; Kagitcibasi, 2007). However, this characterization fails to account for tremendous diversity within Turkey; it is a unified country in which all citizens share the same language and government, but the Eastern and Western regions encompass sharply contrasting lifestyles and values. Eastern Turkey is a traditional society that emphasises conservative values, piety and traditional gender roles, while Western Turkey is characterised by progressive thinking that embraces modernization, religious tolerance and gender equality. Participants in the current study were from the Eastern Turkish city of Gaziantep and the Western Turkish city of Izmir. Gaziantep, on the border of Syria, is the sixth largest city in Turkey and an important centre of industry that has been a regional centre of trade for centuries. It has a patriarchal social context, similar to most Middle Eastern cultures; yet because of economic wealth, compared to other cities in the area, has become relatively more westernised in terms of cultural practices regarding clothing, women’s economic contribution to the household, and the value of education (Goffman, 2004). In contrast, Izmir is

Downloaded by [State University NY Binghamton] at 07:25 08 March 2015

MEMORY CONVERSATIONS AND SELF-CONSTRUAL

the third largest city in Turkey, and also a historic centre of trade, with the second largest port after Istanbul. Before and during the Ottoman Empire era, it attracted many Europeans for trade-related reasons, and English, Italians and especially Greeks heavily influenced the culture (Belli, 2004; Hirschon, 2005). Izmir is considered to be one of the most progressive and westernised cities in Turkey. There are no studies, to the best of our knowledge, that have examined mother– child conversations or any kind of socialisation practices, comparing these two cultural groups. In the current study, data from Eastern and Western Turkey were contrasted with data from the Northeast region of the USA. American culture has been categorised as individualist and emphasises personal autonomy, self-fulfilment, individual achievement and independence from in-group members, consistent with an independently oriented self-construal (Hofstede, 1980; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1995). As noted, researchers have linked cultural differences in memory talk to differences in selfconstrual and some data have suggested a correlation between measures of each (Sahin & Mebert, 2013; Wang, 2001, 2007; Wang, Leichtman, & White, 1998). Self-construal can be measured in a variety of ways at the individual level, often focusing on the degree to which independence vs. interdependence among people is stressed (Imamoglu, 1998, 2003; Kagitcibasi, 2007; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). In theory, mothers in the independently oriented USA talk with children frequently about the personal past in order to emphasise the child’s uniqueness, personal history and individual attributes, so that a critical function of memory talk in this context is to help the child define an autonomous self (Han et al., 1998; Wang & Fivush, 2005). Memory sharing in this context is an integral part of social interaction and frequently also serves the social function of bonding people together (Bluck et al., 2005; Wang & Fivush, 2005). In interdependently oriented East Asian cultures—and potentially other interdependently oriented cultures like Eastern Turkey— memory sharing occurs less often and in less detail (Han et al., 1998; Leichtman et al., 2003; Ross & Wang, 2010; Wang, 2001, 2004). Memories may more often be shared for didactic purposes—for example to guide proper behaviour or thinking— thus serving a directive function, as well as the

71

social function of emphasising relationships, e.g., the hierarchical relationship of mother and child (Pillemer, 2003; Wang & Fivush, 2005). Within culture, variations in self-construal may play a role in the degree to which individuals use memories that serve the self, social or directive functions that researchers have delineated (Bluck et al., 2005). Although the characterization of cultures as normatively independent vs. interdependent has theoretical utility (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), a more nuanced perspective on self-construal is important if we are to understand its impact on memory development. Patterns of self-construal do not apply to all members of a culture uniformly (Kagitcibasi & Berry, 1989), and characteristics associated with individualism and collectivism each may coexist to varying degrees within every culture (Imamoglu, 1998, 2003; Kagitcibasi, 2007; Kagitcibasi & Berry, 1989; Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002). In the present study, we adopted a measure of self-construal that reflects this perspective, Imamoglu’s (1998, 2003) Balanced Integration–Differentiation model (BID). The BID is composed of two subscales, which measure individuation (derived from values of individualism) and relatedness (derived from values of collectivism). Imamoglu (1998, 2003) argued that rather than opposing each other, individuation and relatedness are distinct yet complementary orientations, and individuals in any culture may be high or low on each. Individuation concerns the life span development of an individual’s potential, whereas relatedness concerns the degree of emotional closeness in relationships with significant others. By crossing the high and low ends of these two orientations, four different self-construals emerge (Imamoglu & Karakitapoglu-Aygun, 2004). The present study focused on the two most extreme patterns: individuals with balanced self-construal (high on both orientations) and unbalanced self-construal (low on both orientations). Balanced self-construal refers to individuals who are individuated—high on the development of unique individual potential— and related—closely tied emotionally to others. Unbalanced self-construal refers to individuals who are not individuated and are also emotionally detached from others. Theoretically, these selfconstrual patterns exist in every culture, just in different proportions (Imamoglu & KarakitapogluAygun, 2004).

Downloaded by [State University NY Binghamton] at 07:25 08 March 2015

72

SAHIN-ACAR AND LEICHTMAN

The goal of the present study was to evaluate the characteristics of mother–child conversations and mothers’ self-construal in Eastern Turkey, Western Turkey and the USA, since conversations about past and future events may serve as a reflection of mothers’ self-construal and a context for socialising the child’s self. We analysed unstructured conversations between mothers and their four-year-olds during a discussion of two past and two anticipated future events and collected information about mothers’ self-construal. For all of the predictions below, we expected the largest differences to be between Eastern Turkish and US populations, with Western Turkish populations falling in between. While we predicted that Western Turkish populations would be similar to US populations on many variables, we thought they might be closer to Eastern Turkish populations than Americans would be and not always discernibly different from them. On the one hand, Western Turkish populations share the modern lifestyle and values prevalent in the USA, on the other, they share many elements of their culture with Eastern Turkish populations. The study addressed the following: (1) Do Eastern Turkish, Western Turkish and American mothers differ in the way they converse with their children about personally experienced past events and anticipated future events? We expected that American and Western Turkish mothers would engage in more elaborative memory and future event talk than Eastern Turkish mothers, indicated by amount of talk and other markers of elaboration, while Eastern Turkish mothers would score higher on measures of repetitiveness. These predictions were based on previous findings of positive associations between elaboration and an independent orientation and repetitiveness and an interdependent orientation in other contexts (e.g., Mullen, 1994; Leichtman et al., 2003; Wang & Fivush, 2005). (2) Do Eastern Turkish, Western Turkish and American children differ in the way they converse about past and anticipated future events? Based on findings in other cultural contexts (Han et al., 1998; Wang, 2004), we expected that children’s contributions to mother–child conversations might differ in line with differences in mothers’ talk. (3) Are measures of balanced and unbalanced self-construal associated with differences in the way mothers talk with their children, and is the relationship between self-construal and conversational variables consistent across cultures? Since memory talk can be a way of both connecting with

children and emphasising the achievement of individual potential, we predicted that mothers with balanced self-construal would engage in more elaborative memory talk than mothers with unbalanced self-construal; we expected this to be equally true in all cultures. (4) Do Eastern Turkish, Western Turkish and American mothers differ on the continuous measures of self-construal, individuation and relatedness? How much of the variance in mothers’ elaborativeness and repetitiveness do these variables predict? We expected American and Western Turkish mothers to score higher than Eastern Turkish mothers on measures of individuation, and lower on measures of relatedness, and predicted a positive contribution of individuation to elaborativeness.

METHOD Participants Eighty-seven mothers and their four-year-olds (age range 41–62 months) participated. The sample included 32 mother–child pairs from Eastern Turkey (Mage = 4 years, 3 months, SD = 5.15 months; 18 female children), 30 from Western Turkey (Mage = 4 years, 4 months, SD = 4.31 months; 18 female children) and 25 from the USA (Mage = 4 years, 7 months, SD = 5.20 months; 16 female children). Mothers in all three cultural groups were predominantly married (Eastern Turkey, 100%; Western Turkey, 93%; USA, 100%), well educated (college degree or higher: Eastern Turkey, 66%; Western Turkey, 91%; USA, 96%) and of similar ages (Eastern Turkey, M = 33 years, SD = 3.94; Western Turkey, M = 35 years, SD = 3.67; USA, M = 36 years, SD = 3.76). Participants in all cultural groups were White and middle or upper-middle class and were recruited by advertising through local day care centres.

Procedure Data collection took place in children’s homes, where a researcher visited at the convenience of mothers. All mother–child pairs took part in the same tasks in the same order, during a single research visit. Mothers and children first participated in a mother–child conversation about two past events and two anticipated future events.1 1

An additional drawing task was administered that is outside the scope of this report.

Downloaded by [State University NY Binghamton] at 07:25 08 March 2015

MEMORY CONVERSATIONS AND SELF-CONSTRUAL

Mothers then completed the BID scale and a brief additional questionnaire that asked for demographic information.2 Details of the procedure and coding schemes are described below. The same bilingual researcher conducted home visits for the purpose of data collection in each cultural group. Home visits were conducted in the native language of the participants: Turkish in Eastern and Western Turkey and English in the USA. Upon arrival, the researcher introduced herself to the mother and child and explained how the visit would proceed. Mothers were told that the research focused on mother–child interactions and that their conversations with their children would be recorded; before data collection began they were given further instructions, described below. Mothers provided written consent and children provided verbal assent before data collection began. Mother–child conversations were audio-recorded with a digital tape recorder. Mother–child conversations about past and future events. The researcher first asked each mother—out of earshot of the child—to select four events to discuss with her child, including two memorable events that she had participated in with her child sometime during the past two weeks, and two events that she anticipated participating in with her child during the next two weeks. The researcher asked mothers to write down a few key words about each event on paper to keep during the conversation to cue their memory, assuring that the conversation would proceed smoothly. The researcher asked mothers to talk with their child about the events for approximately 10 minutes. The researcher left the room for the duration, returning when the mother indicated that the conversation was complete. The method of asking mothers to talk with their children about selected past events was 2 Mothers were also asked five questions about their memory habits (e.g., frequency of sharing memories with their children, frequency of collecting memorabilia and overall importance of memory to them). There was only one marginally significant culture effect for “frequency of talking about shared events with your child”, F(2, 84) = 3.06, p = .052, η2 = .072, reflecting the following means on a 1–7 scale: Eastern Turkish (M = 5.47, SD = 1.16), American (M = 6.00, SD = 1.52), Western Turkish (M = 6.11, SD = 0.84) (Tukey post hoc tests, n.s.). There were no other significant differences on any item. Including frequency and importance of sharing memories as covariates did not change the pattern of results reported for regression analyses. (See Results section.)

73

adapted from previous studies (e.g., Fivush & Fromhoff, 1988; Haden, Haine, & Fivush, 1997; Reese & Fivush, 1993) and extended here to include future events. Trained native Turkish and English speakers transcribed verbatim all mother–child conversations from audio-recordings in the original language. A second native speaker of each language checked the transcriptions for accuracy. All coding was conducted on the written transcriptions in the original language of the conversation. Each of the four “conversations” that took place (two about past events, two about future events) was initially coded separately, with the same coding scheme. Two trained, hypothesis-blind coders, one native Turkish speaker and one native English speaker, first separately coded Turkish and American transcriptions, respectively. For reliability purposes, the coder who coded all Turkish data—who was bilingual—then also coded a randomly selected 20% of all American data. A separate, hypothesis blind, trained native Turkish speaker then coded a randomly selected 20% of the Turkish data. Reliability analyses (calculated separately for each coded variable described below, with the exception of word counts, which were not hand coded) indicated high inter-rater agreement; the lowest correlation between raters’ scores was r = .99 for US variables and r = .96 for Turkish variables. Mothers’ and children’s speech were coded separately; all variables were coded by hand with the exception of words and sentences, which were counted in MS Word. Coding schemes were adapted from Fivush, Haden, and Adam (1995), Fivush and Vasudeva (2002), Leichtman et al. (2000), Leichtman et al. (2003) and Reese and Fivush (1993). Mothers’ speech was coded for the following (see Table 1 for descriptions and examples): words, sentences, memory/elaborative questions, yes/no questions, context statements, evaluations, memory/elaborative question repetitions, yes/no question repetitions, context statement repetitions, and descriptives. In addition, the following two composite variables were coded: Elaborativeness was a composite score adapted from Fivush and Vasudeva (2002), calculated as the unique number of elaborations (memory/ elaborative questions + yes/no questions + context statements + evaluations) divided by the sum of elaborations and repetitions. This ratio was used to capture the unique variance of the mothers’ elaborations rather than repetitions of

74

SAHIN-ACAR AND LEICHTMAN TABLE 1 Mothers’ conversation variables

Variable Words Sentences Memory/elaborative questions3 Yes/no questions

Downloaded by [State University NY Binghamton] at 07:25 08 March 2015

Context statements Evaluations Memory/elaborative question repetitions Yes/no question repetitions Context statement repetitions Descriptives

Description

Example

Simple count, meaningless utterances excluded Complete or partial phrases, whether statements or questions Questions focusing on “what”, “where” or “who”; openended Questions requiring children to confirm or deny information Statements requiring no response from the child Statements confirming or disconfirming information provided by the child Verbatim or gist repetitions of memory/elaborative question Verbatim or gist repetitions of yes/no question Verbatim or gist repetitions of context statement Adjectives, adverbs and modifiers

previous utterances. Repetitiveness was a composite score calculated as the total number of mothers’ repetitions of memory questions, yes/ no questions and context statements. The following children’s conversation variables were coded identically to corresponding mothers’ conversation variables: words, sentences, memory/elaborative questions, yes/no questions and descriptives. Memory sentences (in past event conversations) and future sentences (in future event conversations) were also coded as a general measure of children’s provision of information. Mothers’ self-construal. In the second task, mothers completed the written BID Scale measuring self-construal; the scale assesses individuation (13 items) and relatedness (16 items) orientations separately (Imamoglu, 1998, 2003); sample items are described below. The BID was administered in the mothers’ native language and took approximately 10 minutes to complete. The two subscales of the BID measure individuation and relatedness orientations separately. (Cronbach’s alpha was .76 and .82 for the two scales, respectively, similar to levels reported by Imamoglu, 2003.) Items measuring individuation include, “It is very important for me that I develop my potential and characteristics and be a unique person” and “I consider it important that one should develop oneself in accordance with society rather than with one’s wishes” (reverse coded). Items measuring relatedness include “I believe that I will always feel close to my family” and “I find it difficult to relate to people”

“Boy” “We went to the park together”. “What did you do at the park”? “Did you touch that”? “She really looked cute that day”. “You are right about that”. “What are some of the things you did at the park”? “Did you touch it or not”? “She certainly was cute”. “You ran fast”!

(reverse coded). Scores on the two BID subscales can be combined to identify “balanced” and “unbalanced” individuals as described in the results.

RESULTS We first present results of analyses exploring cultural differences in mothers’ and children’s conversation variables. We then present two sets of analyses focusing on self-construal that also take culture into account: the first contrasts mothers with balanced and unbalanced self-construals in a subset of the sample; the second focuses on the relative impact of individuation and relatedness orientations and culture on mothers’ elaborativeness and repetitiveness.

Cultural differences Differences among the three cultures in mothers’ conversation variables were evaluated in a series of one-way ANOVAs in which culture was always the independent variable and conversation variables were dependent. In preliminary analyses, conversation variables were analysed separately for the four conversations; because the 3

Fivush, Haden, and Adam (1995) defined a memory question as one designed to elicit information about an event memory; here, this definition was broadened to include information about anticipated events, and thus labelled “memory/elaborative”. Memory/elaborative questions and yes/no questions were mutually exclusive.

MEMORY CONVERSATIONS AND SELF-CONSTRUAL

75

Downloaded by [State University NY Binghamton] at 07:25 08 March 2015

TABLE 2 Means and standard deviations of mothers’ variables by culture (N = 85)

Variable

Conversation

Words Words Sentences Sentences Mem./elab Q. Mem./elab Q. Yes/no Q. Yes/no Q. Context St. Context St. Evaluations Evaluations Mem./elab Q. rep. Mem./elab Q. rep. Yes/no Q. rep Yes/no Q. rep Context St. rep. Context St. rep. Descriptives Descriptives Elaborativeness Elaborativeness Repetitiveness Repetitiveness Individuation Relatedness

Past Future Past Future Past Future Past Future Past Future Past Future Past Future Past Future Past Future Past Future Past Future Past Future

Eastern Turkish

Western Turkish

American

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

283.66a 269.03a 68.35a 68.57a 22.84a 18.13a 18.53a 17.06a 18.56a 18.01a 16.03a 19.24a 6.44a 5.64a 2.95a 2.99a 2.29a 2.02a 20.56a 19.31a 1.83a 1.85a 11.67a 10.65a 3.55a 4.38a

115.29 149.66 25.50 41.02 11.80 15.54 9.09 12.11 9.27 12.69 8.69 13.72 5.01 7.29 2.62 3.27 2.20 1.91 10.53 12.70 0.13 0.10 6.94 9.76 0.54 0.50

309.37a 268.22a 79.07ab 65.34a 18.68a 12.78a 18.72a 16.79a 25.15a 21.43ab 20.33a 18.96a 3.96b 2.04b 2.17a 2.91a 2.68a 2.12a 30.52a 25.71a 1.88ab 1.90b 8.80ab 7.07ab 3.84b 4.64b

142.18 145.71 34.74 29.80 9.97 7.06 8.82 7.74 16.87 15.31 11.80 14.14 3.21 2.09 3.21 2.42 2.66 2.36 20.23 18.65 0.09 0.06 6.28 4.99 0.55 0.39

522.60b 515.64b 91.41b 89.12b 16.88a 14.52a 33.16b 28.12b 21.04a 29.20b 21.08a 21.88a 2.13b 1.49b 2.85a 2.29a 0.93b 1.01a 43.20b 48.16b 1.94b 1.95c 5.91b 4.79b 3.82ab 4.39ab

298.35 230.10 47.53 39.00 8.44 8.41 18.87 13.24 14.13 14.91 11.38 10.88 2.33 1.85 2.96 2.68 1.35 1.08 24.34 27.71 0.05 0.05 4.33 4.66 0.43 0.37

Means that do not share superscripts within rows are significantly different (Tukey’s post hoc tests, p < .05).

patterns of results were consistent within past and within future conversations, the two conversations for each type of event are combined in all reported analyses. Overall culture differences and the patterns revealed in post hoc analyses are described below. (See Table 2 for means and standard deviations of mothers’ conversation variables by culture.) Only results that were statistically significant at the p < .05 level are reported below.4 In line with predictions, the results revealed overall cultural differences in the number of words spoken in the past event, F(2, 84) = 12.38, p < .001, η2 = .23, and future event conversations, 4 We had no a priori predictions about gender but conducted 3 (culture) × 2 (gender) exploratory analyses on all outcome variables. These indicated that females (M = 1.97, SD = 2.08) asked more yes/no questions than males (M = 1.07, SD = 1.35) about past events, F(2, 84) = 5.024, p = .028, η2 = .031, and that females (M = 154.19, SD = 93.48) spoke more words than males (M = 107.37, SD = 65.94) about future events, F(2, 84) = 5.93, p < .001, η2 = .018. There were no other significant gender differences.

F(2, 84) = 17.69, p < .001, η2 = .30; in both past and future event conversations American mothers spoke significantly more words than Western and Eastern Turkish mothers (Tukey post hoc tests, p < .05), who did not differ significantly from each other. Cultural differences emerged for sentences in the future event conversations F(2, 84) = 3.22, p = .045, η2 = .08; American mothers used significantly more sentences than both Eastern and Western Turkish mothers (Tukey post hoc tests, p < .05), who did not differ from each other. For several variables associated with an elaborative style of conversation, the results showed a pattern in which American mothers were distinct— in the direction of being more elaborative—from both Eastern and Western Turkish mothers, who did not differ from each other. There was an overall culture difference in descriptives in both past F(2, 84) = 10.23, p < .001, η2 = .20 and future event conversations F(2, 84) = 15.61, p < .001, η2 = .27; in both cases American mothers used more descriptives than Eastern Turkish and

Downloaded by [State University NY Binghamton] at 07:25 08 March 2015

76

SAHIN-ACAR AND LEICHTMAN

Western Turkish mothers (Tukey post hoc tests, p < .05), who did not differ from each other. There was an overall culture difference in context statements in future event conversations F(2, 84) = 4.42, p = .015, η2 = .10; American mothers made significantly more context statements than Eastern Turkish mothers (Tukey post hoc tests, p < .05), while Western Turkish mothers did not differ from either of the other two groups. There was an overall culture difference in yes/no questions for both past event F(2, 84) = 11.84, p < .001, η2 = .22 and future event conversations F(2, 84) = 8.94, p < .001, η2 = .18; in both cases, American mothers asked more yes/no questions than Eastern and Western Turkish mothers (Tukey post hoc tests, p < .05), who did not differ from each other. There was an overall cultural difference in the composite variable elaborativeness for both past F(2, 84) = 8.16, p = .001, η2 = .16 and future event conversations F(2, 84) = 12.83, p < .001, η2 = .23. The means lined up similarly across cultures on the two variables, with Americans the most elaborative, followed by Western Turkish and finally by Eastern Turkish. In talking about past events, only the difference between American and Eastern Turkish mothers was significant; in talking about the future, the differences between all groups were significant (Tukey post hoc tests, p < .05). Also in line with predictions, Eastern Turkish mothers demonstrated a general pattern of scoring higher on variables associated with repetitiveness than American and Western Turkish mothers. There was an overall cultural difference in elaborative/memory question repetitions in both past F(2, 84) = 9.32, p < .001, η2 = .18 and future event conversations F(2, 84) = 6.86, p = .002, η2 = .14; in both cases Eastern Turkish mothers provided significantly more elaborative/ memory repetitions than either Western Turkish or American mothers (Tukey post hoc tests, p < .05), who did not differ from each other. There was also an overall cultural difference in context statement repetitions in past event conversations, F(2, 84) = 4.74, p = .011, η2 = .10; American mothers provided significantly fewer context statement repetitions than Eastern Turkish and Western Turkish mothers (Tukey post hoc tests, p < .05), who did not differ from each other. There was an overall cultural difference in the composite variable repetitiveness for both past, F(2, 84) = 6.38, p = .003, η2 = .13, and future event conversations, F(2, 84) = 5.02, p < .009, η2 = .11, and the pattern of means was identical. Eastern

Turkish mothers were the most repetitive, followed by Western Turkish and finally by Americans; only the difference between Eastern Turkish and American mothers was significant (Tukey post hoc tests, p < .05). Differences among the three culture groups in children’s conversation variables were also evaluated in a series of one-way ANOVAs, in which culture group was always the independent variable and conversation variables, evaluated separately for past and future event conversations, were dependent. There were no significant differences between cultural groups on any child variable.

Self-construal effects The two continuous variables derived from the BID, individuation and relatedness, were moderately and significantly correlated across the sample as a whole (r = .36, p < .001), consistent with the view that they are complementary, yet distinct orientations, rather than two ends of a single dimension. Separate one-way ANOVAs indicated a main effect of culture on individuation, F(2, 84) = 3.21, p = .045, η2 = .07, and on relatedness, F(2, 84) = 3.48, p = .035, η2 = .08; on both subscales, Western Turkish mothers scored significantly higher than Eastern Turkish mothers (Tukey post hoc tests, p < .05), while neither group was significantly different from American mothers. (See Table 2 for means and standard deviations.) The individuation and relatedness subscales of the BID can be dichotomized such that on the individuation subscale, participants can score high (individuated) or low (following societal norms), and on the relatedness subscale, participants can score high (emotionally related to significant others) or low (emotionally separated from significant others). The following analyses contrasted participants who scored high on both subscales (referred to as “balanced”) or low on both subscales (referred to as “unbalanced”), excluding participants who scored high on one and low on the other. The distribution of balanced and unbalanced self-construals was similar whether the split on individuation and relatedness was made at the median for each culture group or at the grand median for the whole sample (r = 1, p < .001). Mothers who met the criterion for balanced or unbalanced self-construal by either method of splitting were included in the following analyses. This subsample of 63 mothers included similar

Downloaded by [State University NY Binghamton] at 07:25 08 March 2015

MEMORY CONVERSATIONS AND SELF-CONSTRUAL

sized balanced (N = 32; 10 Eastern Turkish, 15 Western Turkish, 7 American) and unbalanced (N = 31; 13 Eastern Turkish, 8 Western Turkish, 10 American) self-construal groups with equivalent cultural compositions [χ2 (2, N = 63) = 3.04, p = .219]. A series of 2 (self-construal) × 3 (culture) ANOVAs using this subsample were conducted on all mothers’ and children’s conversation variables, evaluated separately—as in previous analyses—for the combined past event and combined future event conversations. Only analyses in which self-construal was significant are reported below. The results indicated no significant interaction between self-construal and culture in any analysis, suggesting that self-construal affected conversation variables in a similar way across cultures. There was a significant main effect of self-construal on mothers’ words for past event conversations, F(1, 57) = 4.01, p = .050, η2 = .02, with balanced participants (M = 400.32, SD = 272.81) using significantly more words than unbalanced (M = 324.00, SD = 162.33). There was also a significant main effect of culture on mothers’ words for past event conversations, F(2, 57) = 8.15, p = .001, η2 = .06, with American mothers (M = 519.00, SD = 334.42) using significantly more words than both Eastern (M = 296.13, SD = 119.95) and Western Turkish (M = 313.92, SD = 152.47) mothers (Tukey post hoc tests, p < .05). There was a significant main effect of self-construal on mothers’ context statements about past events, F(1, 57) = 3.82, p = .055, η2 = .02, with balanced participants (M = 25.64, SD = 17.52) making more context statements than unbalanced (M = 17.16, SD = 9.77). There was also a significant main effect of self-construal on mothers’ context statements about future events, F(1, 57) = 5.59, p = .021, η2 = .02, with balanced participants (M = 25.86, SD = 15.67) making more context statements than unbalanced participants (M = 19.41, SD = 11.35) and a main effect of culture on mothers’ context statements about future events, F(2, 57) = 4.41, p = .017, η2 = .03, in which American mothers (M = 29.88, SD = 14.79) made more context statements than both Eastern Turkish (M = 19.23, SD = 13.44) and Western Turkish (M = 20.82, SD = 12.46) mothers (Tukey post hoc tests, p < .05). Notably, 2 (self-construal) × 3 (culture) ANOVAs in which the composite scores elaborativeness for past, elaborativeness for future, repetitiveness for past, and repetitiveness for future event conversations served as dependent variables revealed no

77

significant effects of self-construal. In each of these analyses, culture was significant, with the pattern of means following the pattern reflected in the univariate analyses on the larger sample described above; elaborativeness for past events F(1, 57) = 4.33, p = .018, η2 = .11, elaborativeness for future events F(1, 57) = 3.12, p = .052, η2 = .07, repetitiveness for past events, F(1, 57) = 4.82, p = .012, η2 = .05 and repetitiveness for future events F(1, 57) = 5.07, p = .009, η2 = .07. Children of balanced and unbalanced mothers were significantly different on only one variable; there was a significant main effect of mothers’ self-construal on the number of yes/no questions children asked during past event conversations, F(1, 57) = 7.06, p = .010, η2 = .06, with children of balanced mothers (M = 1.94, SD = 2.05) asking more yes/no questions than children of unbalanced mothers (M = 1.04, SD = 0.95).

Predicting elaborativeness and repetitiveness To assess the relative contributions of culture and individuation and relatedness orientations to mother’s elaborativeness and repetitiveness, sequential multiple regression was performed on the whole sample (N = 87). In each of four analyses (predicting elaborativeness in past event and future event conversations and repetitiveness in past event and future event conversations), cultural group (dummy-coded) was entered in the first step followed by relatedness and individuation in the second. (See Table 1 for means by culture.) All of the models were significant overall in both steps; model F values at steps 1 and 2 are reported separately below. Analyses predicting mothers’ elaborativeness in past event conversations showed an overall effect of culture, R2 = .16, step 1 F(2, 84) = 8.16, p < .001, and no effect of individuation or relatedness, sr2 = .000, β = .06, t(82) = .53, p = .60 and sr2 = .002, β = .009, t(82) = .08, p = .93, respectively, ΔR2 = .004, step 2 F(2, 82) = 4.08, p = .005. Analyses predicting mothers’ elaborativeness in future event conversations also indicated an overall effect of culture, R2 = .23, step 1 F(2, 84) = 12.83, p < .001, with a significant incremental effect of individuation, sr2 = .054, β = .26, t(82) = 2.51, p = .014, and no effect of relatedness, sr2 = .000, β = .03, t(82) = .22, p = .82, ΔR2 = .07, step 2 F(2, 82) = 8.74, p < .001. The relationship between individuation

Downloaded by [State University NY Binghamton] at 07:25 08 March 2015

78

SAHIN-ACAR AND LEICHTMAN

and elaborativeness was in the predicted positive direction. These results mean that culture accounted for 16% of the variance in mothers’ elaborativeness in past event conversations and 23% in future event conversations, and only individuation orientation was significant in predicting the variance in elaborativeness over and above the effects of culture in future event conversations. Analyses predicting mothers’ repetitiveness in past event conversations showed an overall effect of culture, R2 = .13, step 1 F(2, 84) = 6.38, p = .003, with no incremental effect of individuation or relatedness, sr2 = .000, β = −.02, t(82) = −.15, p = .88 and sr2 = .019, β = .15, t(82) = 1.34, p = .18, respectively, ΔR2 = .02, step 2 F(2, 82) = 3.67, p = .008. Analyses predicting mothers’ repetitiveness in future event conversations showed an overall effect of culture, R2 = .11, step 1 F(2, 84) = 5.02, p = .009, a significant incremental effect of individuation, sr2 = .041, β = .22, t(82) = −1.99, p = .050 and no effect of relatedness sr2 = .016, β = .23, t(82) = 1.25, p = .217, ΔR2 = .05, step 2 F(2, 82) = 3.66, p = .009. The relationship between individuation and repetitiveness was in the predicted negative direction. These results mean that culture accounted for 13% of the variance in mother’s repetitiveness in past event conversations and 11% in future event conversations and only individuation orientation was significant in predicting the variance in repetitiveness over and above the effects of culture in future event conversations. Taken together, these analyses indicate that patterns for past and future talk were similar. Cultural differences played a major role in determining mothers’ elaboration and repetition, whether mothers were talking about past or future events. In conversations about past events, self-construal variables did not contribute to explaining the variance in elaborativeness or repetitiveness beyond the contribution of culture. However, in talking about future events, individuation made a unique contribution over and above culture, always in the predicted direction, so that more individuated mothers were more elaborative and less repetitive.

DISCUSSION The aim of this study was to explore differences in mother–child conversations about both past and future events and their connection with mothers’ self-construal in three cultural groups

whose socialisation and memory practices—to our knowledge—have never been contrasted: conservative Eastern Turkey, progressive Western Turkey and the USA. The findings underscore the importance of studying sub-cultural groups who may share languages and international borders but differ in history and social practices. This is the first study we know of to explore the connection between mothers’ memory practices and their self-construal—measured separately for individuation and relatedness orientations, each on a continuous scale—and to evaluate differences in mother–child conversation between mothers with balanced and unbalanced self-construal types (Imamoglu, 1998, 2003). Evaluating self-construal in this more nuanced way alongside mother–child talk is important because of the intrinsic connection between measures of self and memory, which is reflected in differences in the functions of memory talk across cultures. As we have noted, mother–child conversations about personally experienced past and anticipated future events may reflect the values associated with mothers’ self-construal and also serve a critical role in socialising children, modelling for children culturally adaptive ways to think and converse about their personal history and define the self (Han et al., 1998; Leichtman et al., 2003; Wang, 2004). The results offer several take-home messages, discussed in more detail below. First, there were distinct patterns of mother–child conversation among the three groups; in line with predictions, US mothers were more elaborative (based on overall elaborativeness scores and several subcomponents) than Eastern Turkish mothers, while Western Turkish mothers fell in between. Conversely, Eastern Turkish mothers were more repetitive than American mothers (based on overall repetitiveness scores and several subcomponents) while Western Turkish mothers again fell in between. This was true in both past event and future event conversations, which showed remarkably similar patterns of findings across cultures. Second, and somewhat unexpectedly, the four-year-old children in this study did not show cultural differences in line with the differences among their mothers, at least on the measures we included; their contributions were remarkably consistent across cultures. Third, across all cultures, mothers with balanced selfconstrual—those who scored high on measures of both individuation and relatedness—had lengthier and more context-statement laden

Downloaded by [State University NY Binghamton] at 07:25 08 March 2015

MEMORY CONVERSATIONS AND SELF-CONSTRUAL

conversations than mothers with unbalanced selfconstrual—those who scored low on both measures—indicating a contribution of self-construal to memory practices. Fourth, Western Turkish mothers scored higher on both individuation and relatedness than Eastern Turkish mothers, while Americans scored in between on both variables. While broad cultural differences had the largest impact on the ways in which mothers talked with their children, mothers’ individuation scores—but not their relatedness scores—also contributed to their conversational practices, primarily to the way in which they discussed future events with their children. The cultural differences captured in these mother–child conversations were in line with predictions based on findings from other, very different populations of independently versus interdependently oriented groups, primarily the contrast between East Asians and North Americans (e.g., Wang, 2004; Wang et al., 1998). Notably, in the current study the independently/ interdependently oriented distinction applied not only across the broad USA–Turkey cultural divide, but also across relatively more independent and interdependently oriented subcultures, both housed within the generally interdependently oriented Turkish culture (Hofstede, 1980.) The difference between Eastern and Western Turkish participants paints an intriguing picture of how nuanced the effects of culture on mother–child conversation may be. Like differences documented between Māori and Pakeha mother–child pairs in New Zealand, who also coexist within the borders of one country (but in that case have historically different languages and cultural affiliation), the findings point to the utility of considering regional and other sub-cultural differences in assessing memory talk (Reese, Hayne, & MacDonald, 2008). The Eastern Turkish and Western Turkish mothers in our sample were as similar as possible in socio-economic status and education— an advantage of selecting participants from the relatively wealthy city of Gaziantep within conservative, Islamic Eastern Turkey to contrast with the modern city of Izmir, rather than from other areas of Eastern Turkey where women’s education level and opportunities would be less comparable. Even so, the data attest to striking differences between mothers in this area of Eastern Turkey and both their American and Western Turkish counterparts; we expect these would be even more dramatic if the sample were drawn from more remote areas of Eastern Turkey.

79

Overall, the pattern of results was remarkably consistent in indicating that the largest cultural differences lay between Eastern Turkish and American mothers, always in the predicted direction. This applied to many variables associated with elaborativeness—including the overall length of conversations with children, the number of descriptives used and the components of composite elaborativeness scores such as openended questions, as well as the scores themselves. It also applied to indices of repetitiveness, such as repetitions of memory elaborative questions and context statements and to composite repetitiveness scores. Quite striking is the fact that the means for Western Turkish mothers—for both past and future event conversations—almost always fell between the means of Eastern Turkish and American mothers. In many cases, particularly on variables associated with elaborativeness, Western Turkish mothers’ means did not differ significantly from their Eastern Turkish counterparts’; in other cases, particularly associated with repetitiveness, they did not differ from their American counterparts’, and on some variables, they did not differ from either, despite that fact that Eastern Turkish and American mothers’ differences consistently reached statistical significance. This pattern beautifully reflects the broad characterization of Western Turkey as a land at the crossroads of the Middle East and Europe, with Islamic roots but enormous influence from Western Europe on current beliefs and cultural practices. Contemporary Western Turkish society shares many commonalities with both the USA, as a progressive, open and achievement-oriented culture, and with Eastern Turkey, as its historical, religious, linguistic and political counterpart (Belli, 2004). A unique aspect of this study was the inclusion of talk about both past and future conversations, and the findings indicated that cultural differences in mothers’ conversation variables were typically consistent across the two kinds of talk, so that elaborativeness was highest among Americans and repetitiveness was highest among Eastern Turkish on both. These findings suggest that how mothers talk with their children about the two kinds of events may be similar, consistent with claims that thoughts, and in this case conversations, about the past and future share common characteristics, potentially because the same cognitive and neurological processes underlie both (Schacter et al., 2007, 2008). The findings also suggest that the function of sharing memories

Downloaded by [State University NY Binghamton] at 07:25 08 March 2015

80

SAHIN-ACAR AND LEICHTMAN

of the personal past and the anticipated future may often overlap in real-life daily conversations and may vary equally as a function of cultural values and goals. For example, talking with a child about what will happen on a future outing or strategizing how an event will best play out (e.g., “Then when we go to the store, you can wait while mommy shops, and then we will have an ice cream.”) could serve as a guide to behaviour very similar to the directive function of memory talk (Pillemer, 2003). Alternatively, future talk could serve a self-function, highlighting a child’s personal characteristics and autonomy (e.g., “Then we will go to the restaurant for lunch, because you are big enough to do that now!”) or a social function, for example, bonding through building excitement about an event that will be shared (“We’ll have so much fun together!”) or underscoring adaptive relationship patterns (“Then mommy will let you know when it’s time to go home.”) (Bluck et al., 2005; Wang & Fivush, 2005). Future work could explore this possibility more directly, extending work on memory function to consideration of anticipated future events. An interesting pattern that emerged from the regression analyses in the current study was that once culture was taken into account, mother’s individuation scores contributed to their elaborativeness and repetitiveness—in conversations about the future, but not about the past. It may be that elaborative talk about the future is a distinctive way that mothers who are highly individuated stress autonomy and achievement orientation to their children, but future work in naturalistic contexts would be required to confirm this interpretation of the findings. In these data, children’s conversation was coded for fewer variables than mothers’ and showed no cultural differences. The lack of dramatic effects for children could reflect both the features of the task, and the fact that fouryear-olds are on the young end of the preschool period during which children acquire the style of conversation of the adults around them (Haden et al., 1997; Han et al., 1998). Results of analyses contrasting mothers with balanced self-construal—who scored high on both individuation and relatedness—and unbalanced self-construal—who scored low on both—indicated no culture × self-construal interactions. This is an important point, because it suggests that where self-construal influences the characteristics of mother–child conversation, it does so in similar ways across cultures. In this study,

differences between mothers with balanced and unbalanced self-construals were not significant for overall elaborativeness and repetitiveness variables, in analyses taking culture into account. However, in line with predictions, across all cultures mothers with balanced self-construal had lengthier conversations with their children about past events (indexed by words) and provided more context statements in conversations about both the past and future. These results are consistent with potential differences in the function of memory talk for balanced and unbalanced mothers. Mothers who are high on both individuation and relatedness may use memory and future event talk to support the values of a unique, individual identity and to connect with children through conversations about shared experience. Mothers with balanced selfconstrual also had children who asked more yes/ no questions, indicating the potential for mothers’ self-construal to trickle down to children’s participation in conversations in nuanced ways. Western Turkish mothers scored higher than Eastern Turkish mothers on both individuation and relatedness, while neither Turkish group differed significantly from Americans. These results support the contention that the two dimensions are best characterised as complementary rather than ends of a continuum (Kagitcibasi, 2007; Kagitcibasi & Berry, 1989). Over and above the dramatic effects of culture on mother–child conversation, individuation was associated with greater elaborativeness and less repetitiveness. The memory talk among mothers in Eastern Turkey, Western Turkey and the USA documented in this study provides a unique glimpse into differences among these rarely studied cultural groups. The present study did not include measures of child language, and in future work it would be prudent to do so. The results imply that researchers would be well served to continue to explore the relationship between self-construal measures and the characteristics and functions of mother–child talk about the past and future in diverse cultural and sub-cultural contexts.

REFERENCES Belli, M. (2004). Turkiye-Yunanistan Nufus Mubadelesi [Turkish–Greek population exchange]. Istanbul: Belge. Bluck, S., Alea, N., Habermas, T., & Rubin, D. C. (2005). A tale of three functions: The self–reported uses of autobiographical memory. Social Cognition, 23(1), 91–117. doi:10.1521/soco.23.1.91.59198

Downloaded by [State University NY Binghamton] at 07:25 08 March 2015

MEMORY CONVERSATIONS AND SELF-CONSTRUAL

Fivush, R., & Fromhoff, F. A. (1988). Style and structure in mother-child conversations about the past. Discourse Processes, 11, 337–355. doi:10.1080/ 01638538809544707 Fivush, R., Haden, C. A., & Adam, S. (1995). Structure and coherence of preschoolers’ personal narratives over time: Implications for childhood amnesia. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 60(1), 32–56. doi:10.1006/jecp.1995.1030 Fivush, R., Haden, C. A., & Reese, E. (2006). Elaborating on elaborations: Role of maternal reminiscing style in cognitive and socioemotional development. Child Development, 77, 1568–1588. doi:10.1111/ j.1467-8624.2006.00960.x Fivush, R., & Vasudeva, A. (2002). Remembering to relate: Socioemotional correlates of mother-child reminiscing. Journal of Cognition and Development, 3(1), 73–90. doi:10.1207/S15327647JCD0301_5 Goffman, D. (2004). The ottoman empire and early modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haden, C. A., Haine, R. A., & Fivush, R. (1997). Developing narrative structure in parent-child reminiscing across the preschool years. Developmental Psychology, 33, 295–307. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.33.2.295 Han, J. J., Leichtman, M. D. & Wang, Q. (1998). Autobiographical memory in Korean, Chinese and American children. Developmental Psychology, 34, 701–713. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.34.4.701 Hirschon, R. (2005). Ege’yi Geçerken 1923 Türk-Yunan Zorunlu Nüfus Mübadelesi [Crossing the aegean: Turkish–Greek compulsory population exchange of 1923]. Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi University. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Imamoglu, E. O. (1998). Individualism and collectivism in a model and scale of balanced differentiation and integration. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 132(1), 95–105. doi:10.1080/002239898 09599268 Imamoglu, E. O. (2003). Individuation and relatedness: Not opposing but distinct and complementary. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 129, 367–402. Imamoglu, E. O., & Karakitapoglu-Aygun, Z. (2004). Self-construals and values in different cultural and socioeconomic contexts. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 130, 277–306. doi:10.3200/ MONO.130.4.277-306 Kagitcibasi, C. (2007). Family, self and human development across cultures: Theories and applications (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kagitcibasi, C., & Berry, J. W. (1989). Cross-cultural psychology: Current research and trends. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 40, 493–531. doi:10.1146/ annurev.ps.40.020189.002425 Leichtman, M. D., Pillemer, D. B., Wang, Q., Koreishi, A., & Han, J. J. (2000). When Baby Maisy came to school: Mothers’ interview styles and preschoolers’ event memories. Cognitive Development, 15(1), 99– 114. doi:10.1016/S0885-2014(00)00019-8 Leichtman, M. D., Wang, Q., & Pillemer, D. B. (2003). Cultural variations in interdependence and

81

autobiographical memory: Lessons from Korea, China, India, and the United States. In R. Fivush & C. Haden (Eds.), Autobiographical memory and the construction of a narrative self: Developmental and cultural perspectives (pp. 99–120). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253. doi:10.1037/ 0033-295X.98.2.224 Mullen, M. K. (1994). Earliest recollections of childhood: A demographic analysis. Cognition, 52(1), 55– 79. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)90004-3 Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3–72. doi:10.1037/00332909.128.1.3 Pillemer, D. B. (2003). Directive functions of autobiographical memory: The guiding power of the specific episode. Memory, 11, 193–202. Reese, E., & Fivush, R. (1993). Parental styles of talking about the past. Developmental Psychology, 29, 596–606. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.29.3.596 Reese, E., Hayne, H., & MacDonald, S. (2008). Looking back to the future: Maori and Pakeha mother– child birth stories. Child Development, 79(1), 114– 125. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01114.x Ross, M., & Wang, Q. (2010). Why we remember and what we remember: Culture and autobiographical memory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 401–409. doi:10.1177/1745691610375555 Sahin, B., & Mebert, C. J. (2013). The role of culture and self-construal in autobiographical memories of US and Turkish college students. Memory, 21, 1004– 1017. doi:10.1080/09658211.2013.774418 Schacter, D. L., Addis, D. R., & Buckner, R. L. (2007). Remembering the past to imagine the future: The prospective brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8, 657–661. doi:10.1038/nrn2213 Schacter, D. L., Addis, D. R., & Buckner, R. L. (2008). Episodic simulation of future events: Concepts, data, and applications. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1124, 39–60. doi:10.1196/ annals.1440.001 Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Wang, Q. (2001). Culture effects on adults’ earliest childhood recollections and self-description: Implications for the relation between memory and the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 220–233. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.220 Wang, Q. (2004). The emergence of cultural selfconstructs: Autobiographical memory and selfdescription in European, American and Chinese children. Developmental Psychology, 40(1), 3–15. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.1.3 Wang, Q. (2007). ‘Remember when you got the big, big bulldozer?’ Mother-child reminiscing over time and across cultures. Social Cognition, 25, 455–471. doi:10.1521/soco.2007.25.4.455 Wang, Q., & Conway, M. A. (2004). The stories we keep: Autobiographical memory in American and

82

SAHIN-ACAR AND LEICHTMAN

Downloaded by [State University NY Binghamton] at 07:25 08 March 2015

Chinese middle-aged adults. Journal of Personality, 72, 911–938. doi:10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00285.x Wang, Q., & Fivush, R. (2005). Mother-child conversations of emotionally salient events: Exploring the functions of emotional reminiscing in EuropeanAmerican and Chinese families. Social Development, 14, 473–495. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2005.00312.x Wang, Q., Leichtman, M. D., & White, S. H. (1998). Childhood memory and self-description in young

Chinese adults: The impact of growing up an only child. Cognition, 69(1), 73–103. doi:10.1016/S00100277(98)00061-4 Wang, Q., & Leichtman, M. D. (2000). Same beginnings, different stories: A comparison of American and Chinese children’s narratives. Child Development, 71, 1329–1346. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00231